Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

There is a quote from the founder, something like: "twenty and eighty are hundred, sixty and forty are hundred" with the idea that you need to add a little to a powerful attack but a lot to a week attack.

I think this is the exact opposite of what one might see between a duel involving real swords - which is the point of the thread.

Along the same lines, it's not the starting point of the action that is the issue (i.e. revealing), it's more the type of action that is committed once started.

Take this into the street, where crimes are committed. Only dumb, and soon to be dead, cops approach folks (like Tohei did) as if they were holding no weapons. However, in a dojo or any other type of controlled setting, wherein there is a proscription against weapons being present from the onset, it is a perfectly fine. It works. It seems "realistic" - as long as you forget that someone proscribed against weapons being present in the first place.

When dealing with a situation involving weapons (yours, theirs or both) keeping the situation from escalating is of paramount importance. Running at someone so you can Judo-throw them is not where you'd want to take the fight.

Duels are a very specific kind of fighting, whether they are armed or unarmed. Aikido doesn't cover the dueling aspects of fighting very well. This is why you hear so many descriptions of "un-Aikido-like" techniques and tactics when two people duel.

Aikido is based around weapons confrontation and multiple attackers, it's a dramatically different context than that of a duel.

When dealing with a situation involving weapons (yours, theirs or both) keeping the situation from escalating is of paramount importance. Running at someone so you can Judo-throw them is not where you'd want to take the fight.

Duels are a very specific kind of fighting, whether they are armed or unarmed. Aikido doesn't cover the dueling aspects of fighting very well. This is why you hear so many descriptions of "un-Aikido-like" techniques and tactics when two people duel.

Aikido is based around weapons confrontation and multiple attackers, it's a dramatically different context than that of a duel.

How about a confrontation that involves throwing knives or any other weapon that can be projected?

I think that this kind of upfront willingness to give up the initial initiative would be considered suicidal from the military tactical point of view.

Again, as I said, it's not the starting point of the issue that is revealing in the above posted story. That is to say, I'm not posting the story here to discuss the pros and cons of when to move, but rather to say that in this case one just closed the gap to perform a judo throw and the critique was leveled that it's not a move one can do were a weapon to be present.

Yes, initiative is paramount to determining the outcome of a martial conflict. However, initiative in a fight where weapons are present and/or might be present, or when whose presence or absence is unknown (and therefore must be treated as if present even if they are not actually present), is going to mean something entirely different from what initiative means in the "real" situation the martial arts industry has been selling for decades now (i.e. two unarmed adversaries dueling).

For example, true, as in the story, when no weapons are present, one can keep the initiative by pressing the need for range adjustments in the other person, pressing them into a corner, and executing a grab and a throw. However, when weapons are involved, initiative might be about gaining cover and concealment, having surprise, controlling the opponent's movement by gaining positions of advantage and forcing positions of disadvantage, having superior numbers, etc. In other words, it has to be the right kind of initiative and it can't be reduced to merely who closed the gap first in order to press into a corner for a grab and a judo throw. While aggressive, such tactics might be the thing that can get you killed (as when a knife might be present), and being able to say you moved first and/or aggressively isn't going to be enough to save you.

Duels are a very specific kind of fighting, whether they are armed or unarmed. Aikido doesn't cover the dueling aspects of fighting very well. This is why you hear so many descriptions of "un-Aikido-like" techniques and tactics when two people duel.

Aikido is based around weapons confrontation and multiple attackers, it's a dramatically different context than that of a duel.

It is one thing,,. the only thing.

Clausewitz says it in so many words: that wars are duels in other forms, a form that by its nature tend to escalate to extremes.

O Sensei even says it -- but in meaning to avoid or overcome the principle: that he treats many opponents like one and defeats them -- a lopsided duel -- but a duel nonetheless --- not allowing himself to respond by imitating or even acknowledging the first escalatory move. Paradoxically, that may mean actually initiating the "attack" that the magnified "threat" is actually meant to forestall, or, as when the opponent invites an attack and moves to gedan but you remain in chudan, just as you are, as is said in the Doka.

Weapons (like multiple attackers) are simply the first steps into the realm of escalation of "deterrents" that is inherent in this dynamic -- and which only magnify the possibilities of ultimate destruction. They become therefore a key test of how we address this fundamental problem at that first step up the escalator, and which is simply repeated and enlarged ad nauseam in most conflicts, personal, national or otherwise.

The first step on the escalator is so critical -- because it will carry you all the way up, willing or not, and then you have either jump from an ever increasing height to get off it, or start running back down, just to stop you from being carried relentlessly up ...

If you have not read Rene Girard's "Battling to the End," I highly recommend it.

According to the comments "at this point in our training we are not allowed to strike" so presumabley this is one of those "with knife but no striking duels".

Seriously, if you introduce a concept into a discussion why not define it?

I'm sorry for any confusion per my assumption regarding common (or uncommon) usage of words. My point in using the word "duel" is to note the presence of pre-established environments, rules, starting and stopping conditions, allowances, restrictions, and manner for determining a victor.

In particular, I'm pointing out one example in the Tohei story wherein a restriction was placed against weapons being used.

I'm sorry for any confusion per my assumption regarding common (or uncommon) usage of words. My point in using the word "duel" is to note the presence of pre-established environments, rules, starting and stopping conditions, allowances, restrictions, and manner for determining a victor.

In particular, I'm pointing out one example in the Tohei story wherein a restriction was placed against weapons being used.

Very well, with this in mind, how does a duel situation puts an Aikidoka in a disadvantage?

I think the way in which a person closes the gap, and the distance from which they start closing that gap, and the rate at which a person closes a gap, is different when weapons are present and/or might be present than when they are not. What is commonly accepted Aikido maai and commonly accepted "Aikido" is subverted by this weapon-free gap and how it is closed.

Want to see for yourself? Run this experiment:

Have your partner slowly and steadily move toward you, closing the gap. Have them try to grab you and wrestle you down in this way. Note how you will respond, but you will do so in such a way that someone on this forum will tell you, "Hey! That is not an Aikido technique."

Duels are when two people "square off" it's a one on one fight. Aikido technique is not made for this. There are a number of reasons.

First, Aikido doesn't initiate attack, it blends with incoming attack (yes there are some exceptions but at a general rule we blend with what is given) In the Tohei example, the visitor wouldn't attack, so Tohei had to rush him, not really Aikido's strong suit.

Aikido doesn't have clinch technique, multiple attackers don't afford for clinches, so we don't train for them. In a weapon duel this might not be so much an issue (fewer clinches due to weapon range) but in an unarmed duel, it's a major issue.

Aikido doesn't train boxing style striking. In a duel, there is a give and take to the exchange, circling each other and trading blows. Aikido doesn't teach this, again disadvantage to Aikido technique.

These are just a few reasons why unarmed dueling and Aikido don't mix. In armed dueling, one might find use in Aikido technique, but it's not the strong suit of the system.

Duels are when two people "square off" it's a one on one fight. Aikido technique is not made for this. There are a number of reasons.

First, Aikido doesn't initiate attack, it blends with incoming attack (yes there are some exceptions but at a general rule we blend with what is given) In the Tohei example, the visitor wouldn't attack, so Tohei had to rush him, not really Aikido's strong suit.

Aikido doesn't have clinch technique, multiple attackers don't afford for clinches, so we don't train for them. In a weapon duel this might not be so much an issue (fewer clinches due to weapon range) but in an unarmed duel, it's a major issue.

Aikido doesn't train boxing style striking. In a duel, there is a give and take to the exchange, circling each other and trading blows. Aikido doesn't teach this, again disadvantage to Aikido technique.

These are just a few reasons why unarmed dueling and Aikido don't mix. In armed dueling, one might find use in Aikido technique, but it's not the strong suit of the system.

Chris, On a lot of things you say I generally to various degrees agre with them. Here however I don't think I agree with any.

The concept of Aikido not initiating attacks is true but that doesn't mean Aikido doesn't make the attack happen. So in truth it's not a matter of waiting and blending with the attack. If the attacker is set on attacking then it is for you to initiate how and when. Similar to sensen no sen.

I'm not saying a beginner can or should even attempt that, just that it is a vital part of advanced Aikido especially when it comes to weapons.

Simply put in physical terms it is nage 'striking' but with the sole intention of giving uke something to attack thus achieving what I pointed out above. In weapons I would put it differently in as much as it is nage presnting an irresistable target of attack for uke.

From that viewpoint nage is initiating the attack.

Clinch techniques? Well there are many koshinage and many practices of 'getting out of' all kinds of holds from bear hugs to neck holds etc. There are also many stories of O'Sensei and sumo and wrestlers for that matter. He used Aikido. Not knowing how to leads us to believe we have to adapt.

Boxing style striking may look different physically but energy motion wise it is no different to what you are used to in Aikido. A right hook is a curved punch and a jab is a straight one. Energy motion wise no different to yokomen and tsuki.

The give and take you refer to in those kinds of fights or 'duels' is something you are taught in Aikido not to be drawn into. However if you look at Aikido more closely you will find it perfect for a 'duel.'

You are training with the principles of how to enter. That's half the story. When you inspect the use of weapons in Aikido you will notice you are training in how to enter and finish. No toing and froing, no give and take and bobbing around. It's all a matter of degree of competence at Aikido.

The funny thing is if you applied merely the principle of maai then the attacker would keep trying to hit you and missing if you are competent enough and the complain that your not playing the game.

This is one of the reasons Aikido isn't and cannot be used in a contest sport for if you have ever seen a boxer who could move around and not be hit you would find he was using some of those self same principles you use in Aikido. If he continued without fighting back it would be stopped by the referee and called a no contest.

First, Aikido doesn't initiate attack, it blends with incoming attack (yes there are some exceptions but at a general rule we blend with what is given) In the Tohei example, the visitor wouldn't attack, so Tohei had to rush him, not really Aikido's strong suit.

The way we practice, all shomenuchi attacks are initiated by the nage. When nage presents his/her hand for tai no henko, it is a striking hand, the uke has to take it otherwise it will end up in his face. Same in suwariwaza kokyuho. In juyuwaza the nage is encouraged to close the distance and take initiative and not wait for the attackers to gang up on her. I'd say that "Aikido doesn't initiate attack" is a personal interpretation.

As to Tohei story, it makes no sense to me, a person comes into a dojo with a challenge and then proceeds to be passive to the point that he is "chased" into a corner. In effect the verbal challenge was not followed up by a physical one, logic dictates that the "duel" should have been abandoned in favour of some sake drinking perhaps. Maybe this was impossible due to cultural conventions (e.g. loosing face).
In the interview Chiba says "leapt", and not as you say rushed, which has a negative connotation. He uses "leaped" in the following paragraph as well which describes O-Sensei fighting a "match" (would this be a "duel"?) :

"Takeda Sensei was ill at the time and couldn't accept it, so O-Sensei went as his representative and fought the match in the Hokkaido snow.
When the distance (maai) between them closed, O-Sensei suddenly kicked up some snow with his front food and leapt in swiftly to strike his opponent in the side under his arm. Then he threw him."

"Aikido doesn't have clinch technique, multiple attackers don't afford for clinches, so we don't train for them. In a weapon duel this might not be so much an issue (fewer clinches due to weapon range) but in an unarmed duel, it's a major issue."

This reasoning makes no sense to me, if a martial art is effective when multiple attackers are present, it must be even more so for a single attacker. If having no "clinch techniques" is not a problem with many attackers why should it be when there is only one? What remains is a statement that Aikido is only effective in a "one on one fight" when the Aikidoka is armed, presumably with a sword/tanto but not with say shuriken. Is this your position?

Quote:

Aikido doesn't train boxing style striking. In a duel, there is a give and take to the exchange, circling each other and trading blows. Aikido doesn't teach this, again disadvantage to Aikido technique

Have a look at the Nishio sensei's take on striking. Not sure how from "two people "square off" it's a one on one fight" you get a "give and take to the exchange". "give and take" and "exchange" are foreign to Aikido as I understand it but I do not see why is this relevant here.

Quote:

"These are just a few reasons why unarmed dueling and Aikido don't mix. In armed dueling, one might find use in Aikido technique, but it's not the strong suit of the system"

So Aikido does not mix with unarmed "dueling" and armed "dueling" are not it's strong suit. To what sort of scenarios, in your opinion, is Aikido a good fit?

I think Graham and David Soroko have both brought up some good points.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

The concept of Aikido not initiating attacks is true but that doesn't mean Aikido doesn't make the attack happen. So in truth it's not a matter of waiting and blending with the attack. If the attacker is set on attacking then it is for you to initiate how and when. Similar to sensen no sen.

I think these few sentences are loaded with issues to discuss.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

Boxing style striking may look different physically but energy motion wise it is no different to what you are used to in Aikido. A right hook is a curved punch and a jab is a straight one. Energy motion wise no different to yokomen and tsuki.

Are they really energetically the same?

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

This reasoning makes no sense to me, if a martial art is effective when multiple attackers are present, it must be even more so for a single attacker.

Why must this be true?

What if a system is tailored to work within the demands of multiple opponents, but neglects to exploit the opportunities presented in one-on-one, because of the fact that these opportunities rarely present themselves with multiple opponents and, if they do, attempting to exploit them will likely cost you.

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

If having no "clinch techniques" is not a problem with many attackers why should it be when there is only one?

I think you may have misunderstood. Getting into a clinch can be a positive in one-on-one; it's almost always a negative with multiple opponents.

This really is a great discussion. But let's not lose sight of the original questions.

Do weapons change the engagement? How? Why?

Same for multiple opponents.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

David Soroko wrote:
This reasoning makes no sense to me, if a martial art is effective when multiple attackers are present, it must be even more so for a single attacker.

Why must this be true?

What if a system is tailored to work within the demands of multiple opponents, but neglects to exploit the opportunities presented in one-on-one, because of the fact that these opportunities rarely present themselves with multiple opponents and, if they do, attempting to exploit them will likely cost you.

I did not imply that it will turn out to be the most effective approach in a one on one situation. There may be other arts/strategies that, as you say, will exploit opportunities we might choose to ignore. However it must be effective, if you feel that you are loosing efficiency with one attacker, pretend there are two more :-)

I regard recognizing that the techniques, tactics, and strategy of aikido are designed to be used in a weapons context as one of the most important realizations one can make about aikido.

Quote:

I think when Michael, or myself say weapon based, or weapon context, we mean something other then what many hear.

For example, I don't believe either Michael or myself are saying that Aikido teaches you how to specifically use any weapon. I for one certainly don't think that you are going to become more proficient at cutting with a sword, or hitting with a stick by learning Aikido.

What I do believe, and what I mean when I say weapon based, or weapon context, is that weapons must be present for the Aikido set-ups to become useful. That weapons must be present (along with multiple attacker situations) in order to use the movement, distance and timing taught by the Aikido syllabus.

I think that it will be useful to look at the terms and assumptions.

Weapons

By weapons you presumably mean ken/jo/tanto and probably don't mean shuriken, crossbow, tazers or handguns. I am not being facetious since possessing a projectile weapon changes the interaction completely as it allows to inflict damage with minimal risk and invalidates strategies that allow taking calm and deliberate aim. Also note that both Saito Morihiro Sensei and Saito Hitohiro practice shuriken.

Multiple attackers

As I mentioned before, the multiple attacker scenario is not relevant to this discussion. It makes no sense to say that Aikido is effective (whatever that means) against multiple attackers but not effective against a single attacker. It is either efective or not. If you think that the single attacker is a BJJ master that would like nothing better then to take you to the ground, just imagine that you are attacked by three BJJ masters.

Weapon context

Which brings us to weapons context. We have the weapon that is a sword and we have a single attacker. Lets look at this simplified context. Presumably either me or the attacker or both has a sword. Let's look at the implications

1. I do not have a sword, the attacker has a sword. OK, this does change the interaction completely, but one can not make a claim (not with a straight face anyway) that now I can employ Aikido to maximal effect where before I could not.
2. I have the sword, the attacker has no sword. This is definitely a good place to be, and all that suburi practice will be handy, but I just don't see how this may be presented as the prime use case for Aikido.
3. Both I and the attacker have a sword. I think that quite obviously Aikido is the wrong martial art for this situation. There are plenty of disciplines that are dedicated to studying this particular setup.

Has anyone here ran the above offered experiment, or is all this talk just an assumption on what Aikido can and would do, as is too that folks would generally look at it and remain of the opinion that "Aikido proper" is being generated???

If you've tried it, I'd like to hear what you experienced more than what Aikido could or should be able to do as formulated on the chalkboard.

By weapons you presumably mean ken/jo/tanto and probably don't mean shuriken, crossbow, tazers or handguns. I am not being facetious since possessing a projectile weapon changes the interaction completely as it allows to inflict damage with minimal risk and invalidates strategies that allow taking calm and deliberate aim. Also note that both Saito Morihiro Sensei and Saito Hitohiro practice shuriken.

Multiple attackers

As I mentioned before, the multiple attacker scenario is not relevant to this discussion. It makes no sense to say that Aikido is effective (whatever that means) against multiple attackers but not effective against a single attacker. It is either efective or not. If you think that the single attacker is a BJJ master that would like nothing better then to take you to the ground, just imagine that you are attacked by three BJJ masters.

Weapon context

Which brings us to weapons context. We have the weapon that is a sword and we have a single attacker. Lets look at this simplified context. Presumably either me or the attacker or both has a sword. Let's look at the implications

1. I do not have a sword, the attacker has a sword. OK, this does change the interaction completely, but one can not make a claim (not with a straight face anyway) that now I can employ Aikido to maximal effect where before I could not.
2. I have the sword, the attacker has no sword. This is definitely a good place to be, and all that suburi practice will be handy, but I just don't see how this may be presented as the prime use case for Aikido.
3. Both I and the attacker have a sword. I think that quite obviously Aikido is the wrong martial art for this situation. There are plenty of disciplines that are dedicated to studying this particular setup.

David. I know it's the general considered view, whether it be by99% of Aikidoka or not, but I disagree with your third point above.

It sounds quite logical due to others dedicated to such practice but I fail to see how an art which has the bokken as part of it's art cannot be suited to such a situation.

I have seen my old teacher, going back over twenty years ago, in two such situations where others of such arts challenged his ability.

I'm not going to give examples of past or long term Japanese teachers for people will only say it's due to their past training.

I have had a student go to a kendo class in cyprus and 'defeat' a sixth dan. (Not as a challenge I hasten to add but as moving and cutting in such a way that they couldn't stop him)

I myself have done it in real life twice. Once wasn't actually with swords but was a thug with a large stick versus me with a short stick. Invite, enter cut, game over. My only knowledge being that which I gained in Aikido.

This makes it no better than other sword arts but for some who learn what is there very usable in such situaions. Quality of study and ability exceeds quantity ( ie:no. of years dedicated to) every time as long as both have plenty of experience.

I think the way in which a person closes the gap, and the distance from which they start closing that gap, and the rate at which a person closes a gap, is different when weapons are present and/or might be present than when they are not. What is commonly accepted Aikido maai and commonly accepted "Aikido" is subverted by this weapon-free gap and how it is closed.

Want to see for yourself? Run this experiment:

Have your partner slowly and steadily move toward you, closing the gap. Have them try to grab you and wrestle you down in this way. Note how you will respond, but you will do so in such a way that someone on this forum will tell you, "Hey! That is not an Aikido technique."

David. I didn't just go and do that as an experiment but I have done such things in the dojo on numerouse occasions.

Your description I can 'see' seems to fit an in life situation, the type faced by a policeman potentially or security etc. I may be wrong there but that's my guess.

I have taught drills of people moving foreward as you describe and the other person having to feel exactly the point that other passes the edge of their circle or in other words enters maai. Other drills too to do with picking up the intention at the point the person is about to do something.

The last I describe as the practice of shin shin toitsu, not the type of Aikido but the meaning of that term as I was taught it. Driil, drill, drill until it is as real to the person as seeing physical movement with their own eyes.

Add to this a drill on maai which goes beyond physical maai or transcends it if you like and so the closing of physical distance is of no significnce under said demonstration.

For people who can do this I say they must then do only Aikido as a result and so more practice until it is natural.

So yes I have done it and yes have then used Aikido.

Having said all that however I do accept you said commonly held views on aikido and indeed maai. From that point of view I would say, if my experience of commonly held views is correct, that a person would revert to whatever they could do which probably would not look too much like Aikido.

Has anyone here ran the above offered experiment, or is all this talk just an assumption on what Aikido can and would do, as is too that folks would generally look at it and remain of the opinion that "Aikido proper" is being generated???

In my experience, in similar situations, I've been told "this is not proper aikido" and "this is not proper judo". Depends on who was watching (or receiving the technique).